Mission logic

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Mission logic

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Mission logic

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Mission logic - 9/25/2021 10:09:43 PM

nudn1k

Posts: 54
Joined: 7/18/2013
Status: offline

Please help me understand the mission logic for AAW Patrols.
I have aircraft from two bases assigned to one AAW patrol. The Mission setup is: 2 units per class on-station, 1/3 unchecked, enforce flight size checked.
The aircraft are: F15C with loadout AMRAAM Sniperpod, Heavy (#25257) at one base. the other base has F15C's with loadout AMRAAM w/o Sniperpod, Heavy (#16934).

Now only 1 flight launches from the closest airbase. However, if the loadout at one base is e.g. AMRAAM Medium a second flight launches.
Is this is intended behaviour?

Thanks
N.

Post #: 1

RE: Mission logic - 9/26/2021 7:26:12 PM

Gunner98

Posts: 5508
Joined: 4/29/2005
From: The Great White North!
Status: offline

nudn1k

That is the way its intended. The mission logic will keep one pair of Heavy AMRAAM loadouts, I suppose it doesn't make a differentiation about the Sniperpod. You're Medium load group is a different 'class' of loadout.

I find it more predictable to have a different CAP setup for each base, but the double base setup works with a bit of experimentation.

B

_____________________________

Check out our novel, Northern Fury: H-Hour!: http://northernfury.us/
And our blog: http://northernfury.us/blog/post2/
Twitter: @NorthernFury94 or Facebook https://www.facebook.com/northernfury/

(in reply to nudn1k)

Post #: 2

RE: Mission logic - 9/26/2021 7:38:37 PM

thewood1

Posts: 6529
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline

"I find it more predictable to have a different CAP setup for each base"

Thats great advice to avoid frustration. In fact, I don't use integrated escorts or tankers because so many things can go wrong that you can't predict. I much rather have the planning flexibility of seperate groups and then integrating them through better overall planning. The same goes for multi-base missions. I tend to avoid them.

_____________________________

You are like puss filled boil on nice of ass of bikini model. You are nasty to everybody but then try to sweeten things up with a nice post somewhere else. That's nice but you're still a boil on a beautiful thing! - BDukes

(in reply to Gunner98)

Post #: 3

RE: Mission logic - 9/26/2021 8:25:59 PM

BeirutDude

Posts: 2625
Joined: 4/27/2013
From: Jacksonville, FL, USA
Status: offline

At the risk of stating the obvious (but for newbees) I usually do what TheWood1 has suggested and make sure my naming convention helps me keep them straight (especially for big scenarios, but I don't know anyone who creates those

).

"Havana Strike - Tanker"
"Havana Strike - SEAD"
"Havana Strike - ASuW"
"Havana Strike - Recon"

CTF 60.1 ASW Patrol - S-2A
CTF 60.1 ASW Patrol - SH-2D
CTF 60.1 ASW Alert Strike - SH-2D

_____________________________

"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference. The Marines don't have that problem."
PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN, 1985

I was Navy, but Assigned TAD to the 24th MAU Hq in Beirut. By far the finest period of my service!

(in reply to thewood1)

Post #: 4

RE: Mission logic - 9/26/2021 9:24:18 PM

Kushan04

Posts: 683
Joined: 6/29/2005
Status: offline

I generally do the same thing but not always. Sometimes I'll create marshaling missions for strike or CAP aircraft that I'm going to manually control but want them pooled into an area for easier selection. I'll also occasionally lump all my tankers into the same missions, even if they come from multiple different bases.

When setting up the opposing AI for a scenario, I always set it up similar to BeirutDude.

_____________________________

Twitch
Discord
Community Scenario Pack
Community Scenario Pack (Steam)

(in reply to BeirutDude)

Post #: 5

RE: Mission logic - 9/27/2021 8:34:09 PM

BeirutDude

Posts: 2625
Joined: 4/27/2013
From: Jacksonville, FL, USA
Status: offline

quote:

Sometimes I'll create marshaling missions for strike or CAP aircraft that I'm going to manually control but want them pooled into an area for easier selection.

I do so as well for my personal play.

_____________________________

(in reply to Kushan04)

Post #: 6

RE: Mission logic - 9/27/2021 9:43:56 PM

thewood1

Posts: 6529
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline

The naming convention is a great pro tip. I can't count the number times half way through a scenario and I can't remember why I created a mission.

_____________________________

(in reply to BeirutDude)

Post #: 7

RE: Mission logic - 9/30/2021 8:51:36 PM

maverick3320

Posts: 146
Joined: 2/14/2021
Status: offline

Is it possible to setup a single CAP with different platforms? Say I'd like to setup a CAP with 2x Mig-31s and 2x Mig-23s in the same area. Is it easier to just create two separate missions?

(in reply to thewood1)

Post #: 8

RE: Mission logic - 9/30/2021 10:32:30 PM

Gunner98

Posts: 5508
Joined: 4/29/2005
From: The Great White North!
Status: offline

quote:

Is it possible to setup a single CAP with different platforms?

Short answer is yes. If you set up a CAP and either set 1/3 rule or assign a number, the AI will identify the different types as such and apply your assignments individually to each type. I.e. If you set the # on station as 2 and put Mig-31 & Mig-23 on the mission, 2 of each will remain on station.

I have done this before but you lose flexibility. If it is for an AI side on a scenario, that's fine, no-one will need to change it. If it is for you playing a scenario, I wouldn't do it because I'll forget about something.

B

_____________________________

Check out our novel, Northern Fury: H-Hour!: http://northernfury.us/
And our blog: http://northernfury.us/blog/post2/
Twitter: @NorthernFury94 or Facebook https://www.facebook.com/northernfury/

(in reply to maverick3320)

Post #: 9

RE: Mission logic - 9/30/2021 10:34:43 PM

tylerblakebrandon

Posts: 173
Joined: 5/11/2020
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: maverick3320

Is it possible to setup a single CAP with different platforms? Say I'd like to setup a CAP with 2x Mig-31s and 2x Mig-23s in the same area. Is it easier to just create two separate missions?

I do this frequently. If you want one type to RTB shotgun after using their BVR weapons and you would like another to stay and go to guns then 2 missions may be preferable. If you want each type to do the same then no issues. Some other WRA settings may take some fenagling but you can make it work. Some may think it a hassle others may not, YMMV.

(in reply to maverick3320)

Post #: 10

RE: Mission logic - 10/1/2021 6:34:07 PM

maverick3320

Posts: 146
Joined: 2/14/2021
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gunner98

quote:

Is it possible to setup a single CAP with different platforms?

Short answer is yes. If you set up a CAP and either set 1/3 rule or assign a number, the AI will identify the different types as such and apply your assignments individually to each type. I.e. If you set the # on station as 2 and put Mig-31 & Mig-23 on the mission, 2 of each will remain on station.

I have done this before but you lose flexibility. If it is for an AI side on a scenario, that's fine, no-one will need to change it. If it is for you playing a scenario, I wouldn't do it because I'll forget about something.

B

Excellent, thanks for the answer. Related, perhaps tougher question: is it possible to set up the same CAP (with multiple aircraft types) to "rotate" through the CAP? That is, I only want two total planes in the air, but I don't really care whether they are Mig-31s or Mig-23s in the CAP.

(in reply to Gunner98)

Post #: 11

RE: Mission logic - 10/1/2021 6:47:05 PM

Gunner98

Posts: 5508
Joined: 4/29/2005
From: The Great White North!
Status: offline

quote:

is it possible to set up the same CAP (with multiple aircraft types) to "rotate" through the CAP?

No I don't think so. No doubt there is a method using Lua but I'm not sure how to do it. You could set up multiple CAP missions and alternate their status (active/inactive) but that would get messy I think

_____________________________

Check out our novel, Northern Fury: H-Hour!: http://northernfury.us/
And our blog: http://northernfury.us/blog/post2/
Twitter: @NorthernFury94 or Facebook https://www.facebook.com/northernfury/

(in reply to maverick3320)

Post #: 12

RE: Mission logic - 10/1/2021 7:26:32 PM

thewood1

Posts: 6529
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline

I have done something like that by activating and deactivating missions. But I use the event editor for it on the AI side. I use it when the AI has limited quantities of types of fighters, but has a variety of them. I have also used multiple simultaneous missions with only one fighter from each type in each mission to give me multiple types of fighters in the same zone.

I only do this when forced to on the AI side because of scenario limits and OOBs in the specific scenario. Otherwise, I almost never mix units in CAP, sweep, or escort missions.

_____________________________

(in reply to Gunner98)

Post #: 13

RE: Mission logic - 10/2/2021 12:09:14 AM

stww2

Posts: 219
Joined: 5/23/2017
Status: offline

I'm pretty sure you could use the 1/3 rule to have a patrol mission with multiple classes without having every class try to launch at once. I do this all the time on ASW patrols and it seems to work, but those are also always single-unit flights (not sure if that would make a difference). The catch is that you won't be able to specify the actual number of aircraft you want on station; you'll just be stuck with whatever the game decides constitutes a third of the assigned units.

(in reply to maverick3320)

Post #: 14

RE: Mission logic - 10/2/2021 2:05:36 PM

KnightHawk75

Posts: 1450
Joined: 11/15/2018
Status: offline

quote:

No doubt there is a method using Lua but I'm not sure how to do it

Presuming you have cap mission with say 4 members, 2 Mig-31,2 Mig-23 and you want 2 air-frames in the air active on-mission regardless of grouping or type.

You set the mission to 1 aircraft + single flightsize and optionally uncheck enforce flight-size by base\loadout\etc. You set up an event with a trigger that fires say once a minute (or whatever time you find reasonable but 1 or 5 seconds is overkill for such), the action is the script call that does the following in a nutshell:
1. Grabs the specified mission unitlist, and fetches each member unit wrapper into to a temporary table of units.
2. Iterate though each member unit in temp table, check if they're in the air and also if they are not rtb state (or landing state if you want to be even more thorough), OR if they are in the taxi to runway or takeoff state (accounts for already launched aircraft), you you add them to your count.
3. If when done counting you have a count >= X (2 in this case) you don't do anything. If else you re-interate the unit table again finding the first one who's ready time is 0, and who's loadoutid is > 4 (ie likely has an actual assigned loadout), and then call the Launch method on the unit. Baring any backlog\runway access delays said unit will be airborne in about two minutes or less.

I find the already discussed 'multiple missions' generally easier approach unless it just don't meet one's need. The aforementioned though is just one (fairly straightforward) approach if one wants to 'Lua' it. It works pretty well for typical AAW patrols in my experience where one just wants to maintain X # of air-frames active on the patrol at all times.

(in reply to Gunner98)

Post #: 15

RE: Mission logic - 10/2/2021 10:17:11 PM

SeaQueen

Posts: 1451
Joined: 4/14/2007
From: Washington D.C.
Status: offline

I'm in the same boat. The software will handle it, but not always in the way you expect or desire. One of my classic examples has been the bombers are based one place, the escorts are based another place, but they all launch at the same time. Provided they're relatively close that's not a big deal but when a bomber base can be thousands of miles away from the fighter base, and the fighters only join up at the last part of the mission it can be a big problem. In that case, it's obviously better to just plan the escorts as an AAW patrol instead of explicitly "escorts."

I think sometimes people wed themselves too much to the language in Command. As I've become more sophisticated in the game, I've come to think of the different missions as tools I can use to elicit desired behaviors. For example, an AAW Patrol mission can be a DCA station, a fighter sweep, or an escort mission according to US doctrine. It just depends on how you want to draw the lines and what options you select.

I also frequently use AAW patrols as generic "catch all" missions for things like hold points and bullpens.

It's all just language.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1

"I find it more predictable to have a different CAP setup for each base"

Thats great advice to avoid frustration. In fact, I don't use integrated escorts or tankers because so many things can go wrong that you can't predict. I much rather have the planning flexibility of seperate groups and then integrating them through better overall planning. The same goes for multi-base missions. I tend to avoid them.

(in reply to thewood1)

Post #: 16

RE: Mission logic - 10/2/2021 11:44:39 PM

thewood1

Posts: 6529
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline

I think that might be a key issue in players understanding missions in CMO. Missions are just empty templates to organize units. But all the features and functions associated with missions define what it actually does. Its the reason I seperate escorts, tankers, and strike into separate missions. For those to all work together, the mission build and expectation has to be relatively generic.

If you start building massive strike packages with dozens of strikers, escorts, and tankers from multiple bases with a multitude of loadouts, you be disappointed and frustrated if sending it after a complex environment of CAP, layered defences and multi-unit targets. CMO and its mission structure just can't handle all the variables that might come up. Its why you always need to consider multiple. smaller, and task focused missions that get assembled into larger packages where you have a lot of flexibility to move around the mission pieces to match shifting situations.

If you send a 24 unit strikers with 12 escorts and 6 tankers from multiple bases against a complex well defended target, you are painting yourself into a corner. If that first line of SAMS doesn't get completely knocked out, the entire strike will be unable to adjust. Then the player has to step in and take over detailed control to salvage anything. And if its the AI side, there is no hope except luck.

_____________________________

(in reply to SeaQueen)

Post #: 17

RE: Mission logic - 10/3/2021 2:10:52 AM

SeaQueen

Posts: 1451
Joined: 4/14/2007
From: Washington D.C.
Status: offline

I'm 100% tracking.

I worry sometimes that people want the computer to do their thinking for them. I see that in a lot of talk about an advanced mission planner. That's why I'm suspicious of the whole idea. I hate to sound like a Luddite sometimes, but I suspect a lot of these people don't really understand the game. The substance of the game is often in figuring out how to route things. How do you work time and distance problems? How do you shack that time on target? How do you get that big complicated strike package to where you want it? Do you have enough gas to go the way you want to go and get all the effects on target you want and need?

In truth, if the scenario presents the player with an interesting enough problem, you can try to salvage a bad plan, but my observation is that it's hard to do. At least in the case of air war, you're so constrained by fuel that it's a big deal to try to rethink the whole plan on the fly. In the case of war at sea, ships move pretty slow, so it's hard to radically reposition them on a tactical time scale during an air engagement. I think too much has been said about the importance of player intervention, at least with respect to the real time interaction and trying to salvage a bad plan.

I've found that if you're smart you can build a plan good enough for the AI to execute with no problems. The AI can kick your ass if the scenario designer can formulate a red course of action. If it's no good, then you're right, there's probably no salvaging it. So don't build terrible plans. :-)

quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1

I think that might be a key issue in players understanding missions in CMO. Missions are just empty templates to organize units. But all the features and functions associated with missions define what it actually does. Its the reason I seperate escorts, tankers, and strike into separate missions. For those to all work together, the mission build and expectation has to be relatively generic.

If you start building massive strike packages with dozens of strikers, escorts, and tankers from multiple bases with a multitude of loadouts, you be disappointed and frustrated if sending it after a complex environment of CAP, layered defences and multi-unit targets. CMO and its mission structure just can't handle all the variables that might come up. Its why you always need to consider multiple. smaller, and task focused missions that get assembled into larger packages where you have a lot of flexibility to move around the mission pieces to match shifting situations.

If you send a 24 unit strikers with 12 escorts and 6 tankers from multiple bases against a complex well defended target, you are painting yourself into a corner. If that first line of SAMS doesn't get completely knocked out, the entire strike will be unable to adjust. Then the player has to step in and take over detailed control to salvage anything. And if its the AI side, there is no hope except luck.

< Message edited by SeaQueen -- 10/3/2021 3:07:03 PM >

(in reply to thewood1)

Post #: 18

RE: Mission logic - 10/3/2021 3:01:20 AM

thewood1

Posts: 6529
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline

Well , as we mentioned, the issue to me is players trying to build the perfect mission with a single CMO mission. Another issue is that some players don't want to do any of the up front planning. Related to that, I have been skeptical from the first mention of the AMP that it would meet the expectations of the people pushing for it.

_____________________________

(in reply to SeaQueen)

Post #: 19

RE: Mission logic - 10/3/2021 1:05:05 PM

maverick3320

Posts: 146
Joined: 2/14/2021
Status: offline

Having played some large scenarios with 40-60 (perhaps even 80?) aircraft strike packages that I've sent out, I would find an advanced strike planner useful if the only thing it did was have the ability to compute time on target for platforms and weapons scattered across a map. I think it was one of the Med Fury scenarios where I had to launch 20+ aircraft from a US CVBG moving away from a target along with 30-40 other aircraft scattered at bases across the Med, in addition to trying to time the aircraft missile strikes to go along with Tomahawk strikes and Harpoons fired from a SAG. The target was a mix of land and naval targets with 3x Grumble SAMs and a Slava-class cruiser so trying to time air- and sea-launched Harpoons, HARMs, and Tom Cruise missiles to all arrive at the exact time was extremely difficult. I started doing it by hand and finally gave up and created an excel spreadsheet. One of the toughest parts, oddly, is trying to figure out how long it takes a given carrier or airbase to launch a large amount of aircraft, as aircraft don't always seem to launch in the same order that I order them to.

(in reply to thewood1)

Post #: 20

RE: Mission logic - 10/3/2021 3:05:07 PM

SeaQueen

Posts: 1451
Joined: 4/14/2007
From: Washington D.C.
Status: offline

The problem with an advanced strike planner would be if it lacks the flexibility one requires to make smart decisions or it constrains you to the plan it arrives at, not the plan you want. What you don't want is a piece of software that asserts, "this is how things are done in real life," because they just don't know, when the real answer is really more in the "well, it depends," department. If you don't build those dependencies into the software, then it's more of a hinderance than a help. Could it handle a complicated low altitude ingress, zig-zagging through the mountains? Could it handle pre-emptive targeting, where you fire weapons into the target area, while other things force the targets to reveal themselves? What if something gets delayed? Can I spin some of the forces so that they remain synchronized or will that mess things up? The software already makes some conservative assumptions about midair refueling which aren't necessarily correct for longer strikes, forcing you to handle them manually. Are similar assumptions going to be baked in which limit the utility of it?

I don't know.

When people say it would help, they're making a lot of assumptions. They're assuming that something which does not exist meets their needs as they imagine them. Even if it meets their needs, it doesn't necessarily mean that it meets another person's needs.

It may be that the correct solution is to use a hypothetical advanced strike planner in some cases, but not others. There may still be some situations where you want to do things differently. I don't know. I think anything like that needs to be looked at as completely experimental, and there needs to be the flexibility built in to completely disregard it if you choose.

(in reply to maverick3320)

Post #: 21

RE: Mission logic - 10/3/2021 3:47:23 PM

thewood1

Posts: 6529
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline

There was a long thread several years ago around the AMP and when asked to define what it was, there was very little comment. It mostly stopped at ToT. I think most people's view that know CMO relatively well is it lays a base that you can modify and add to. But I think people would be very disappointed with how much planning and paper/pencil decisions would still have to be made. You are talking being able to synchronize a variety of 10,000 weapons, 10,000 platforms, multiple sides in an infinite variety of terrain, weather, etc. to come up with a solution. I think what you would end up with would be so generic as to not be much more useful than doing it manually. But much less flexible.

Would it be useful? In some limited cases, yes. But you can't depend on it for a final solution. What if the launching aircraft are delayed by an unexpected enemy recon aircraft, but you already launched SEAD or a fighter sweep. Or even worse, you already launched cruise missiles. That nice AMP-generated plan is close to useless. Think of the resources the devs will have to invest into it and combine that with the expectations already set for it. Instead, invest in the simpler tools that just help me reduce the planning load. Like flight time calculators based on some basic planning inputs. A tanker calculator. Copy and paste features for missions. Embedding missions inside missions. Event management available in runtime, not just the editor. Formation templates. Emcom templates. There are some basic features that can help in planning, but don't require building a game within the game.

_____________________________

(in reply to SeaQueen)

Post #: 22

RE: Mission logic - 10/3/2021 3:51:04 PM

thewood1

Posts: 6529
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline

One of the comments that came out of one of the AMP discussion threads was that a lot of micromanagers think the AMP is a solution to micromanaging. My comment is people who micromanage will still micromanage and complain that the AMP is not detailed enough. It'll create a spiraling task for the devs to continuously monkey and tweak the AMP based on players wanting more and more detailed execution to fit their personal expectation of the AMP.

_____________________________

(in reply to thewood1)

Post #: 23

RE: Mission logic - 10/3/2021 11:18:56 PM

BeirutDude

Posts: 2625
Joined: 4/27/2013
From: Jacksonville, FL, USA
Status: offline

quote:

My comment is people who micromanage will still micromanage...

Yes, I'm guilty of that. I just find that the A/I Mission Manger just doesn't do what I want the aircraft to do, Say flying NAPE in the Beqaa Valley. So many times I just set up a "support mission" or AAW/ASuW patrol mission and then deploy the aircraft as I want them to ingress to the target (at least until the go into defensive mode and fly right into the SAMs in the name of "evasion" and never attack the target)!

I do agree with the discussion that people get too literal about mission designations. BUT I also think that some missions could benefit from a separate GUI/interface that better fits those mission specifics. AEW and ECM missions come to mind, I think an ECM Mission could benefit from being a separate mission function rather than an "Escort" with ranges to initiate jamming ingress altitudes, etc. I usually set up my own 'support missions" rather than including the jammers as escorts.

_____________________________

(in reply to thewood1)

Post #: 24

RE: Mission logic - 10/3/2021 11:37:09 PM

AndrewJ

Posts: 2318
Joined: 1/5/2014
Status: offline

A well designed mission planner would be a very useful tool. The ability to accurately define complex routes, and determine the related distances, times, and fuel consumptions, would be enormously helpful, particularly when coordinating the activity from multiple airbases.

Here's my attempt to coordinate multiple tanking and strike events in Gunner98's PF#6 scenario.

It's a hot steaming mess, based on Ctrl-D distances, editing in placeholder units to use as F2 and cursor tools, and attempts to calculate fuel expenditure and fuel transfer rates in different load conditions. Despite my efforts, there's a whole lot of TLAR built in, and final accuracy of the plan turned out to be modest (particularly in coordinating with cruise missile timing). It took several evenings of play just for this planning stage. A proper suite of mission planning tools would have greatly increased the speed and accuracy of the process, and let me move from planning to execution a lot more quickly.

I can see a good mission planner being particularly attractive to the professional side of the business, where the logistical and scheduling side of the military equation are crucial. It would also be very helpful for scenario authors, who need to make their AI minions appear to operate in a coordinated and intelligent fashion. (This would probably be the biggest benefit, IMO.) The current missions are very much a 'blunt instrument', and improved mission planning could do a lot to make the scenarios more interesting and engaging. Since play experience strongly depends on the scenario, this can have a positive impact on the commercial side of the business, by allowing the creation of more attractive DLC content and community scenarios. And finally, it would help the player produce workable battle plans within a reasonable time-frame, which would help increase play enjoyment.

Nobody's suggesting a good mission planner will solve every problem, or be applicable in every circumstance. Of course the enemy will try and interfere with your plans - that's axiomatic. That's when you step in as the human to take charge and adapt. I certainly wouldn't want to be forced to use a mission planner at all times. But, at the moment the absence of a good suite of mission planning tools seems like an omission. Adding an advanced mission planner would be an overall advantage to Command.

(in reply to BeirutDude)

Post #: 25

RE: Mission logic - 10/3/2021 11:55:16 PM

SeaQueen

Posts: 1451
Joined: 4/14/2007
From: Washington D.C.
Status: offline

I think the problem is that it's a false dichotomy between "micromanaging" and not. In practice, anyone who has seen my screenshots posted sees that I make extensive use of missions. I also engage directly with platforms where necessary. A good example might be B-2 strike from Diego. In order for that to execute smoothly and not turn around at inopportune times, you need to select a bunch of different options on the platform and manage it quite directly. That approach tends to lead to the most realistic results. In fact, the platforms I tend to spend the most time "micromanaging," are the strikers. That is precisely the focus of an AMP. It makes me nervous that there might be built in assumptions that might not be true in all cases, or even most cases. If I can't spin a bomber because it's running on railroad tracks to meet a schedule that is now no longer valid because there's fighters in the target area that need to be cleared, I've got a problem.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1
One of the comments that came out of one of the AMP discussion threads was that a lot of micromanagers think the AMP is a solution to micromanaging. My comment is people who micromanage will still micromanage and complain that the AMP is not detailed enough. It'll create a spiraling task for the devs to continuously monkey and tweak the AMP based on players wanting more and more detailed execution to fit their personal expectation of the AMP.

(in reply to thewood1)

Post #: 26

RE: Mission logic - 10/4/2021 1:46:34 AM

thewood1

Posts: 6529
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline

Thats why some of the tools are good, especially ToT estimators, but the complexity of building and even using is going to be well beyond most of us to use. And I'm not so sure a defense group is going to find a full AMP that useful, based on public information on how they are using CMO.

_____________________________

(in reply to SeaQueen)

Post #: 27

RE: Mission logic - 10/5/2021 11:57:33 AM

SeaQueen

Posts: 1451
Joined: 4/14/2007
From: Washington D.C.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1

Thats why some of the tools are good, especially ToT estimators, but the complexity of building and even using is going to be well beyond most of us to use. And I'm not so sure a defense group is going to find a full AMP that useful, based on public information on how they are using CMO.

It depends. If it's done right, it could come in handy. If it's done wrong, nobody will use it. The worst possible situation is to be forced to use it or be constrained by it. I guess the thing that makes me cringe is that the guys, out of necessity, must act with incomplete information. They can't be handed a bunch of documents and take a tour of an AOC, as well as play a few games with several different sets of patch wearers coming up with the plan. They've mostly never seen a sample AOD, ATO, SPINS, ACO, etc, nor have the watched real air battles or at least exercises. They're working off a combination of what they can find was done historically, and (worst of all) sometimes military fiction (the whole, "I want to do what they did in Red Storm Rising!" effect). This leads to potential hang ups. When I'm working with new analysts, sometimes they have to unlearn a lot of what they thought was true. If what you know about air war comes from TOP GUN and Iron Eagle, and a smattering of DCS, you've got a lot to learn. I don't mean to imply that the guys are that green (they're better than) but they do have a incomplete picture of air planning, so when people talk about this kind of feature, I get nervous.

< Message edited by SeaQueen -- 10/5/2021 12:00:17 PM >

(in reply to thewood1)

Post #: 28

RE: Mission logic - 10/6/2021 3:31:39 PM

maverick3320

Posts: 146
Joined: 2/14/2021
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AndrewJ

A well designed mission planner would be a very useful tool. The ability to accurately define complex routes, and determine the related distances, times, and fuel consumptions, would be enormously helpful, particularly when coordinating the activity from multiple airbases.

Here's my attempt to coordinate multiple tanking and strike events in Gunner98's PF#6 scenario.

It's a hot steaming mess, based on Ctrl-D distances, editing in placeholder units to use as F2 and cursor tools, and attempts to calculate fuel expenditure and fuel transfer rates in different load conditions. Despite my efforts, there's a whole lot of TLAR built in, and final accuracy of the plan turned out to be modest (particularly in coordinating with cruise missile timing). It took several evenings of play just for this planning stage. A proper suite of mission planning tools would have greatly increased the speed and accuracy of the process, and let me move from planning to execution a lot more quickly.

I can see a good mission planner being particularly attractive to the professional side of the business, where the logistical and scheduling side of the military equation are crucial. It would also be very helpful for scenario authors, who need to make their AI minions appear to operate in a coordinated and intelligent fashion. (This would probably be the biggest benefit, IMO.) The current missions are very much a 'blunt instrument', and improved mission planning could do a lot to make the scenarios more interesting and engaging. Since play experience strongly depends on the scenario, this can have a positive impact on the commercial side of the business, by allowing the creation of more attractive DLC content and community scenarios. And finally, it would help the player produce workable battle plans within a reasonable time-frame, which would help increase play enjoyment.

Nobody's suggesting a good mission planner will solve every problem, or be applicable in every circumstance. Of course the enemy will try and interfere with your plans - that's axiomatic. That's when you step in as the human to take charge and adapt. I certainly wouldn't want to be forced to use a mission planner at all times. But, at the moment the absence of a good suite of mission planning tools seems like an omission. Adding an advanced mission planner would be an overall advantage to Command.